of the distressed BF Homes was first determined by
the SEC en banc or by the HLURB.
18. SAN MIGUEL PROPERTIES INC. vs PEREZ, Sep 4,
2013
FACTS: Petitioner San Miguel Properties Inc.
purchased from B.F. Homes, Inc. 2,130 residential
lots situated in its subdivision BF Homes Paraaque.
The transactions were embodied in three separate
deeds of sale. The TCTs covering the lots bought
under the first and second deeds were fully delivered
to San Miguel Properties, but 20 TCTs covering 20 of
the 41 parcels of land purchased under the third deed
of sale, were not delivered to San Miguel Properties.
On its part, BF Homes claimed that it withheld the
delivery of the 20 TCTs for parcels of land purchased
under the third deed of sale because Atty. Orendain
had ceased to be its rehabilitation receiver at the
time of the transactions after being meanwhile
replaced as receiver by FBO Network Management,
Inc. on May 17, 1989 pursuant to an order from the
SEC. BF Homes refused to deliver the 20 TCTs despite
demands. Thus, San Miguel Properties filed a
complaint-affidavit in the Office of the City
Prosecutor of Las Pias charging respondent
directors and officers of BF Homes with non-delivery
of titles in violation of Section 25, in relation to
Section 39, both of Presidential Decree No. 957. At
the same time, San Miguel Properties sued BF Homes
for specific performance in the HLURB praying to
compel BF Homes to release the 20 TCTs in its favor.
San Miguel Properties filed a motion to suspend
proceedings in the OCP Las Pias, citing the pendency
of BF Homes receivership case in the SEC. In its
comment/opposition, BF Homes opposed the motion
to suspend. In the meantime, however, the SEC
terminated BF Homes receivership on September 12,
2000, prompting San Miguel Properties to file on
October 27, 2000 a reply to BF Homes
comment/opposition coupled with a motion to
withdraw the sought suspension of proceedings due
to the intervening termination of the receivership.
The OCP Las Pias rendered its resolution, dismissing
San Miguel Properties criminal complaint for
violation of Presidential Decree No. 957 on several
grounds, one of which was that there existed a
prejudicial question necessitating the suspension of
the criminal action until after the issue on the liability
ISSUE: Whether the HLURB administrative case
brought to compel the delivery of the TCTs could be a
reason to suspend the proceedings on the criminal
complaint for the violation of Section 25 of
Presidential Decree No. 957 on the ground of a
prejudicial question
RULING: YES. A prejudicial question is understood in
law to be that which arises in a case the resolution of
which is a logical antecedent of the issue involved in
the criminal case, and the cognizance of which
pertains to another tribunal. It is determinative of the
criminal case, but the jurisdiction to try and resolve it
is lodged in another court or tribunal. It is based on a
fact distinct and separate from the crime but is so
intimately connected with the crime that it
determines the guilt or innocence of the accused. The
rationale behind the principle of prejudicial question
is to avoid conflicting decisions. The determination of
whether the proceedings ought to be suspended
because of a prejudicial question rested on whether
the facts and issues raised in the pleadings in the
specific performance case were so related with the
issues raised in the criminal complaint for the
violation of Presidential Decree No. 957, such that the
resolution of the issues in the former would be
determinative of the question of guilt in the criminal
case. An examination of the nature of the two cases
involved is thus necessary. An action for specific
performance is the remedy to demand the exact
performance of a contract in the specific form in
which it was made, or according to the precise terms
agreed upon by a party bound to fulfill it. Evidently,
before the remedy of specific performance is availed
of, there must first be a breach of the contract. On the
other hand, Presidential Decree No. 957 is a law that
regulates the sale of subdivision lots and
condominiums in view of the increasing number of
incidents wherein "real estate subdivision owners,
developers, operators, and/or sellers have reneged
on their representations and obligations to provide
and maintain properly" the basic requirements and
amenities, as well as of reports of alarming
magnitude of swindling and fraudulent
manipulations perpetrated by unscrupulous
subdivision and condominium sellers and operators.
Conformably with the foregoing, the action for
specific performance in the HLURB would determine
whether or not San Miguel Properties was legally
entitled to demand the delivery of the remaining 20
TCTs, while the criminal action would decide
whether or not BF Homes directors and officers
were criminally liable for withholding the 20 TCTs.
The resolution of the former must obviously precede
that of the latter, for should the HLURB hold San
Miguel Properties to be not entitled to the delivery of
the 20 TCTs because Atty. Orendain did not have the
authority to represent BF Homes in the sale due to
his receivership having been terminated by the SEC,
the basis for the criminal liability for the violation of
Section 25 of Presidential Decree No. 957 would
evaporate, thereby negating the need to proceed with
the criminal case. Worthy to note at this juncture is
that a prejudicial question need not conclusively
resolve the guilt or innocence of the accused. It is
enough for the prejudicial question to simply test the
sufficiency of the allegations in the information in
order to sustain the further prosecution of the
criminal case. A party who raises a prejudicial
question is deemed to have hypothetically admitted
that all the essential elements of the crime have been
adequately alleged in the information, considering
that the Prosecution has not yet presented a single
piece of evidence on the indictment or may not have
rested its case. A challenge to the allegations in the
information on the ground of prejudicial question is
in effect a question on the merits of the criminal
charge through a non-criminal suit